Thanks for the URL, dianavan, but that's more or less exactly what at least I do not like reading anymore: Opinion only slightly disguised as science, one-sided selected facts with the deliberate omission of potential problems in the equation. For instance, if one compares the first page CO2 curve (as an aside, look at his clever choice of the numbers at the ordinate making the increase visually larger) with the temperature curve on one of his next pages one sees that most of the temperature increase (roughly two third) in the past century was during those years when the CO2 increase was still small. I see no mention of this problem by Suzuki. From a good site I'd expect more even-handedness and a little more sense of the problems for his position.

Last year I have heard an equally bad lecture (one-sided, selective, ridiculing,...) by a person from the other side of the debate, one from the all-is-well faction. I was the first one to stand up at the questions section and complain about his approach. I'm fed up with halfsense from whichever side it comes. I'm looking for facts (and theories) to help me form an opinion, and whereever I look I see opinions looking for supportive facts and nothing else.

What I'm looking for is, for instance, a doomsayer explaining me from his point of view why the temperature has decreased from 1700 to 1850 and why the decrease started from temperatures as high as in the late 1990s. Or one of the all-is-wellers instead of only criticising others' models for not including one potentially interesting factor leading to negative feedbak making a model himself showing that an increase of CO2 and similar gases does not lead to higher temperatures (at least in his model).

Wolfgang